The Delhi High Court has ordered departmental action against Ahlmads for non-compliance with an order citing a staffing shortage

A Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court at the Karkardooma District Court complex has demanded that departmental action be taken against Ahlmads for failing to comply with a previous decision for the issuance of process, claiming a staff shortage as the reason.

“The non-compliance of the previous order can only be attributed to the Ahlmad and the Asstt. Ahlmads’ gross negligence and scant regard for the directions of this Court,” CMM Arun Kumar Garg said.

The Ahlmad endorsed the process, indicating that it could not be provided in accordance with the directive of September 17 owing to a staffing shortfall.

The Court stated that the aforementioned explanation was unsatisfactory, saying:

“I believe it is reasonable to submit the incident to the Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, NE, with a request that appropriate departmental action be taken against the Ahlmad/Asstt. Ahlmads for extreme insubordination and desertion of duty.”

The Court was hearing a case in which the accused was accused of defrauding as many as 33 people out of more than Rs. 1 crore.

The accused, who was seeking bail in the case, said that because the investigation had already been concluded and a chargesheet had been filed, keeping him in custody would be futile.

The State, on the other hand, claimed that the accused had fled after selling his home, and that if he was given bail, he would almost certainly fail to appear in court for trial.

The chargesheet against the accused was also taken into consideration by the court under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act.

“The applicant’s/counsel accused’s should receive a copy of this order dasti. Supdt. Immediately send a copy of this order to the Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, NE, as well as DCP EOW “Court said.

The Court also demanded an explanation from DCP, Economic Offenses Wing, as to why a replacement IO had not been dispatched as of yet, followed by the transfer of the previous IO.

STATE VS. MOOL CHAND is the name of the case.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close